( 1 ) BY this application under Sections 439 read with section 482 Cr. P. C. , petitioner is seeking bail in case FIR No 125/03 under sections 302/34 IPC, P. S. Chandni Mahal, delhi. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION allegations are that on 9. 6. 2003 petitioner s wife (Raj Kumari) lodged a report that deceased (Kailasdh, Sri Krishna and Om Parkash), who are the bad characters of the area, had been demanding money to enable them to do constructions and to repair their house, where they were living. This was recorded vide DD No. 20a. There was a dispute at about 10. 28 pm and information regarding a quarrel at petitioner s house, police reached the spot where deceased Kailash, Sri krishna and Om Parkash were found injured in the critical condition. Petitioner as well as his two sons (Deepak and Vipin) were also found having received injuries. They were removed to the hospital. On the statement made by one Suresh, case was registered. After investigations, challan has been filed; petitioner was arrested and the matter is pending trial. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the only eye-witness of the incident (Suresh) was examined in the trial court on 27 5. 2005, he has not supported the prosecution and has turned hostile. Learned counsel submits that there is no other evidence against petitioner, therefore he is entitled to be released on bail. ( 4 ) LEARNED APP for the State opposing the prayer for bail submits that in the Statement under section 161 Cr. P. C , Suresh has assigned a specific role to petitioner. Presence of petitioner at the spot is not disputed learned counsel submits that blood stained clothes of petitioner were seized at the spot and the blood group found on the clothes of petitioner has tallied with the blood group of the deceased and that out of 25 witnesses, 15 witnesses have been examined, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail. ( 5 ) IT is not dispute that deceased were B. C of the area Petitioner and his sons were also injured. The only eye-witness of the incident has not supported the prosecution case. Incident happened at the petitioner s residence and there is prior report of the petitioner. There is no other case against the petitioner. ( 5 ) IT is not dispute that deceased were B. C of the area Petitioner and his sons were also injured. The only eye-witness of the incident has not supported the prosecution case. Incident happened at the petitioner s residence and there is prior report of the petitioner. There is no other case against the petitioner. ( 6 ) IN the facts and circumstances of this case, application is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the condition that petitioner shall not temper with the evidence and shall not leave Delhi without prior permission of the Court. Any observations made herein would not affect merits of the case during trial. Applications stands disposed of. DASTI. .